![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
I'm not sure if this is exactly like the "previous" fancruft template that got TFD'd a long time ago, but notice the different wording (more in line with the Trivia template). I built this because of some articles (specifically Philippine Television and actor articles) I've seen with excessive fancrufty details and all that throughout. I realized that we needed a new template for this, cause the Trivia template is more for just "sections" of it, and not "cruft". If you wanna change the name of it or tweak the wording, you most certainly can. ViperSnake151 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to adding a category to the template so that all articles that have this tag will be categorized?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Drive-by tagging is not a responsible or productive substitute for article editing and discussion on an article's talk page, and tags that comprise talk content should in any case never be allowed to blight an article, regardless of what problems the article may have, by being allowed to pile up at the top of an article. Please see links at the top of my user page for more discussion. Robert K S ( talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The points made against the discussion starter sound more like an excuse instead of valid reasons why this should be kept. This template is highly subjective and open to far too much interpretation. "Intricate detail" (as the template calls it) for a subject of which you are interested is why you go to an encyclopedia or other large information source to begin with (almanacs, ancestry websites, library card catalog, "The complete works of..." books, and so on), and it is always up for interpretation because of course the information is of interest to only a "specific audience": those who are visiting the topic hoping for information! If you only want the basics, then open a dictionary. Every plot summary, human being, tv character, tiny island on this planet or orbiting body in space, animal, vegetable, mineral, element, invention, game, or way of thinking that gives more than the very basics could be marked with this template by someone else who has no interest in the subject matter. Yet, there is a bit of irony in that if the intricate details were removed, someone else might come along marking the article to be expanded or ask for AfD because the lack of information makes the subject seen NN. Original intentions of this template aside, I see it as only a way of restricting people from contributing additional information while adding unnecessary focus on something that should be expected (detail) rather than not expected. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reason=
, with the expectation that if no reason is given the template will give an error message. This will still mot prevent Randy in Boise from leaving incomprehensible, inappropriate, or unactionable reasons, but it might help reduce the number of instances. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk):
06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)I propose that this template, which currently categorizes into Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing, be split off into a new category, Category:Wikipedia articles with excessive detail. It is relatively distinct from the other templates for this category, for it is also somewhat a content issue. 107.77.218.116 ( talk) 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Realizing the scope and distinctiveness of the issue, I created a new maintenance category, Category:Wikipedia articles that are excessively detailed. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This template should be taken to TFD. It has no basis in policy or guideline. There is no such thing as "overly detailed". There's no consensus for information to be removed because someone finds it boring, which is what this thing seems to boil down to. [Note: It is possible for information to be unencyclopedic due to its nature (eg phone numbers) but never because of its quantity which is what this silly thing is suggesting.] James500 ( talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While I could do this on my own, with over 2000 transclusions I want a second opinion before publishing the change in the sandbox ( compare).
The change enables |nosplit=
as used in
Template:Very long.
If this looks okay, ping me and I'll change the code and the documentation at the same time.
This new parameter will be used in places like Imerys § Imerys Talc America worker lockout where a reduction is the goal and splitting or relocating information is not recommended. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 🎄 00:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there any established guidance on how this template should be used? If there's one applied at the article level, is it appropriate to apply additional ones at a section level? Argento Surfer ( talk) 18:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This part is editors' mistake. -- 5.43.73.144 ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The details =
parameter should not be optional, to the extent that a warning should be displayed if it is not present. Please add this functionality, as when the details are not provided, the tag is generally unactionable and therefore of no use, while at the same time appearing offensive to the page editors who may perceive it as passive-aggressive and opinionated in the absence of sufficient detail to be useful. Please ping with reply. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk):
07:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The words that may interest only a particular audience
are redundant, as that is a normal characteristic of any reasonably complete encyclopedia article. It is potentially confusing or misleading to include them in this template as if this was part of a problem. I propose that this text be removed from the template. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk):
05:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Jc37: On investigation, I find your assertion here is inaccurate: the wording change was not due to a merge, it was very likely the cause of it. You changed the wording at the beginning of an active merge proposal, meaning that subsequent commenters saw templates that you had edited to be substantially identical. This so egregiously impacts the validity of the discussion that I'm going to ask @ ClydeFranklin: to consider relisting the discussion so this procedural error can be corrected. But in the interim, even if we take the consensus to merge as valid, it does not constitute a consensus for your preferred wording change. Please self-revert and, should you still wish to pursue a wording change, propose it properly. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The wording and the links in the updated text are all there for reasons. which I'd be happy to discussGreat! Do that, get consensus for your proposal, and then implement the change. In the meantime, leave the original in place. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
I'm not sure if this is exactly like the "previous" fancruft template that got TFD'd a long time ago, but notice the different wording (more in line with the Trivia template). I built this because of some articles (specifically Philippine Television and actor articles) I've seen with excessive fancrufty details and all that throughout. I realized that we needed a new template for this, cause the Trivia template is more for just "sections" of it, and not "cruft". If you wanna change the name of it or tweak the wording, you most certainly can. ViperSnake151 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to adding a category to the template so that all articles that have this tag will be categorized?-- Rtphokie ( talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Drive-by tagging is not a responsible or productive substitute for article editing and discussion on an article's talk page, and tags that comprise talk content should in any case never be allowed to blight an article, regardless of what problems the article may have, by being allowed to pile up at the top of an article. Please see links at the top of my user page for more discussion. Robert K S ( talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The points made against the discussion starter sound more like an excuse instead of valid reasons why this should be kept. This template is highly subjective and open to far too much interpretation. "Intricate detail" (as the template calls it) for a subject of which you are interested is why you go to an encyclopedia or other large information source to begin with (almanacs, ancestry websites, library card catalog, "The complete works of..." books, and so on), and it is always up for interpretation because of course the information is of interest to only a "specific audience": those who are visiting the topic hoping for information! If you only want the basics, then open a dictionary. Every plot summary, human being, tv character, tiny island on this planet or orbiting body in space, animal, vegetable, mineral, element, invention, game, or way of thinking that gives more than the very basics could be marked with this template by someone else who has no interest in the subject matter. Yet, there is a bit of irony in that if the intricate details were removed, someone else might come along marking the article to be expanded or ask for AfD because the lack of information makes the subject seen NN. Original intentions of this template aside, I see it as only a way of restricting people from contributing additional information while adding unnecessary focus on something that should be expected (detail) rather than not expected. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
reason=
, with the expectation that if no reason is given the template will give an error message. This will still mot prevent Randy in Boise from leaving incomprehensible, inappropriate, or unactionable reasons, but it might help reduce the number of instances. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk):
06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)I propose that this template, which currently categorizes into Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing, be split off into a new category, Category:Wikipedia articles with excessive detail. It is relatively distinct from the other templates for this category, for it is also somewhat a content issue. 107.77.218.116 ( talk) 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Realizing the scope and distinctiveness of the issue, I created a new maintenance category, Category:Wikipedia articles that are excessively detailed. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
This template should be taken to TFD. It has no basis in policy or guideline. There is no such thing as "overly detailed". There's no consensus for information to be removed because someone finds it boring, which is what this thing seems to boil down to. [Note: It is possible for information to be unencyclopedic due to its nature (eg phone numbers) but never because of its quantity which is what this silly thing is suggesting.] James500 ( talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
While I could do this on my own, with over 2000 transclusions I want a second opinion before publishing the change in the sandbox ( compare).
The change enables |nosplit=
as used in
Template:Very long.
If this looks okay, ping me and I'll change the code and the documentation at the same time.
This new parameter will be used in places like Imerys § Imerys Talc America worker lockout where a reduction is the goal and splitting or relocating information is not recommended. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 🎄 00:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there any established guidance on how this template should be used? If there's one applied at the article level, is it appropriate to apply additional ones at a section level? Argento Surfer ( talk) 18:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This part is editors' mistake. -- 5.43.73.144 ( talk) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The details =
parameter should not be optional, to the extent that a warning should be displayed if it is not present. Please add this functionality, as when the details are not provided, the tag is generally unactionable and therefore of no use, while at the same time appearing offensive to the page editors who may perceive it as passive-aggressive and opinionated in the absence of sufficient detail to be useful. Please ping with reply. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk):
07:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The words that may interest only a particular audience
are redundant, as that is a normal characteristic of any reasonably complete encyclopedia article. It is potentially confusing or misleading to include them in this template as if this was part of a problem. I propose that this text be removed from the template. · · ·
Peter Southwood
(talk):
05:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Jc37: On investigation, I find your assertion here is inaccurate: the wording change was not due to a merge, it was very likely the cause of it. You changed the wording at the beginning of an active merge proposal, meaning that subsequent commenters saw templates that you had edited to be substantially identical. This so egregiously impacts the validity of the discussion that I'm going to ask @ ClydeFranklin: to consider relisting the discussion so this procedural error can be corrected. But in the interim, even if we take the consensus to merge as valid, it does not constitute a consensus for your preferred wording change. Please self-revert and, should you still wish to pursue a wording change, propose it properly. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The wording and the links in the updated text are all there for reasons. which I'd be happy to discussGreat! Do that, get consensus for your proposal, and then implement the change. In the meantime, leave the original in place. Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)